Please note, the topic discussed is the implications of the SMH article; not Harry....
A total of eight bells are struck to end a watch; to "knock seven bells out of someone" implies pretty severe handling — without actually finishing him off (7/8ths). Despite it's nautical implications, the use of a seven bells alarm system is a necessary defence when dealing with matters aeronautical. On an ascending scale, from the minor 'tinkle' (something nothing) to the bloody great big CLANG of the real deal (Incoming). A small tinkle of concern has always been the background music to the tale of Tiger; but just lately a couple of the larger, more strident alarms have been ringing. Not for the immediate safety of passengers; but for the internal health of the company and those who are ultimately responsible for that safety, long term. As the quote below is from the 'media' and Tiger have not, as yet contradicted it, it's fair game for comment; as, IMO it is a signpost to a dark place.
Tensions between Tiger flight crews and staff on the ground prompting Tiger chief pilot Harry Holling to last month email all pilots to warn them about “several reports lately of crew having heated discussions with other staff whilst on line’’. “There is no place for yelling, aggressive or threatening behaviour…this applies to radio transmissions as well as face to face communication.”
If you deconstruct the paragraph, there are several issues which are being 'glibly' covered without definition or substance.
Why are there 'tensions'? Unhappy 'ground' staff is not a high score on a safety count; but angry, distracted aircrew are a whole new level for concern. A 'one off' scuffle between ground staff and air crew is an insignificant event and even a fairly high 'count' over a year is probably acceptable; not desirable, but it happens. Now the CP response is to email the 'pilots', warning them not to argue with ground staff, not mentioning what steps have been taken to alleviate the core issues. Not addressing the issues openly and honestly serves no purpose other than to drive the 'problem' underground and foster resentment. Beating on the aircrew and supporting what they see as a problem is counterproductive. A statement more along the lines of "To all staff; management have identified certain areas within the 'system' which have led to disagreement between ground and flight staff; management have taken the steps necessary to resolve those issues. All staff have been advised of those changes and asked to report directly any further potential areas for misunderstanding". To simply ignore the 'issues' and gag the aircrew speaks of the Ostrich and the sand pit. From the article, we find not only that the 'problem' remains firmly in place, but the remedy is to dump it on the flight crew.
Shortly after the March 3 flight plan incident, Mr Holling sent an email to all pilots warning them to check flight plans for mistakes. "As pilots, we are the last line of defence and we should all exercise extra care when our flights are disrupted or not routine. Generally everyone does a great job in dealing with the pressures of low cost carrier operations and dealing with weather and curfews," Mr Holling wrote.
SOP – Crew will cross check the flight plan for gross errors. The need to state the bleeding obvious to professional aircrew, in an email is, to my mind, a loud CLANG of the big bell. There can only be two conclusions to this patronising, un-required missive – the flight crew are really slack and/or grossly under trained; or, the flight planning is such a mess that crew will be well advised to DIY, save the time, trouble and aggravation. I would prefer an email saying – be patient, we have identified some weak areas in the flight planning system. Additional training, oversight and system modification is on going; please ensure SOP is complied with during the short, interim period. From the article, we find not only that the 'problem' remains firmly in place, but the remedy is to dump it on the flight crew.
The party piece is the vaguely insulting 'generally everyone'. etc. To top it off we intimate that LCC is some kind of pressure operation. It is germane to remind all that the 'business' of LCC operations is of constant 'financial' pressure; this cannot be transferred to the operational end. The antics of those who must score financial points, has sod all to do with aircraft operations, the notion of 'pressuring' or even mentioning 'pressure' to aircrew because of their LCC status is repugnant, dangerous, demeaning and, ultimately defeats the purpose of 'lean, mean' operations.
Now, I am not saying that the report in the SMH is accurate or even written with any understanding of the internal game being played; perhaps the issues have been competently and comprehensively dealt with. If these matters have been resolved, it only leaves the
PR looking foolish and overpaid; the SMH article should be firmly rebutted.
It's just as well the Australian media is terminally dense, imagine a head line and story "Deep problems within Tiger threaten air safety". "CASA fail to ensure a robust safety culture". "Pilots are being exposed to substandard flight planning. Despite several attempts to have the problems rectified, passengers are being placed in a situation where the aircraft could run out fuel. Management have informed the pilots that as a LCC, they are not allowed to question or dispute substandard or incorrect minimum flight fuel figures, happily operate under extreme pressure, must not argue with ground staff and they must check every line on the flight plan as management cannot and will not accept the responsibility". (pure fiction - of course).
Scandalous ain't it ? Boy Oh boy, how the Virgin masters would love that sort of press for breakfast...